4 ms·

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To 'Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference - with evidence

21 points by gibsonf1 19y ago

sethjohn 19y ago
"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming." "The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC" "carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else" This is the sort of nonsense that makes me ashamed to call myself a 'climate skeptic'. Then of course, I watch Al Gore's film where he shows Florida sinking under the ocean and that is ridiculous as well. Climate change is a potential-problem about which there are great (truly gigantic!) uncertainties and therefore no easy answers.
- brlewis 19y ago
  In Gore's film he talks about Antarctic ice melting much faster than scientists projected. That's part of the gigantic uncertainty you're concerned about. When there's gigantic uncertainty, a valid question is, "What is the worst-case scenario here?" Gore presented the Florida scenario as something that could happen if all the ice melted.
  - sethjohn 19y ago
    "What's the worst case scenario" may be a valid question, but it's not a very helpful question...particularly not in a mass-market film where the caveat 'this is extremely unlikely' will be forgotten and the take-home message is that Florida is about to disappear. People should be informed about the issues in a manner that is as honest and realistic as possible, particularly when the uncertainties are so great.
    - jraines 19y ago
      It is a helpful question when thinking about what action to take. It's basic game theory, and it's why nobody ever launched a nuclear first strike during the Cold War. Why is this being modded down? If you don't consider the worst case scenario in strategic decision making, you're a fool. Especially when the worst case is famine, plague, etc., not "my startup crashes and I move back in with the parents".
      - te_platt 19y ago
        It only makes sense to consider the worst case scenario in the context of the probability that it will happen. On my drive home the worst case scenario is that I will be killed in a car accident, yet I'm going to take that chance. Also we have to consider the worst case scenario of the other course of action. What if the actions taken to combat global warming cause worse famine, plague, etc.?
        downer 19y ago
        > On my drive home the worst case scenario is that I will be killed in a car accident No, the worst case scenario is you crash and are alive but trapped... At night, the ice weasels come.
        jraines 19y ago
        You are correct about this. Without getting into probabilities of the different outcomes resulting from action or non-action on climate change, I'd recommend the video someone posted lower down in this thread. The weight given to an outcome in considering it in decision making would be the probability x magnitude (+ or -). So on your drive home the risk of death might not affect your decision to make the drive, if you had to drive across Johannesburg or Kuala Lumpar, you might consider taking a cab. So even while the probability that the Country A would survive a nuclear first strike with the capability to retaliate was quite low -- the magnitude of the outcome from its doing so was enough to dissuade Country B from taking that chance. To the other commenter below -- just google 'prisoner's dilemma' or 'Nash equilibrium' for some sources to get you started on game theory. Note: I'm not claiming to be an expert on game theory by any means. I'm recounting the Mutually Assured Destruction example from an economics class's subsection on game theory and would be happy if someone wanted to prove me wrong or elaborate on the subject.
      - huherto 19y ago
        You comment is very intriguing. Can you recommend any references to strategic decision making in basic game theory? Thanks.
        19y ago
  - pixcavator 19y ago
    > Antarctic ice melting much faster than scientists projected. This only proves that those models were crap.
    - pixcavator 19y ago
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.ht...
- deleted 19y ago
  [deleted]
joeguilmette 19y ago
i dont think anyone can deny that are a great many 'gigantic' uncertainties related to the science behind climate change. some simple logic, however, is more than enough to convince me that doing something is the vastly superior alternative to doing nothing. if we choose to spend vast resources curbing emissions and such and we are wrong, those resources go to waste. given the current deployment of resources by our western civilization, such waste would need to go a long way to amount to more than a drop in the bucket. if we listen to the most passionate of skeptics and choose to do nothing and we are wrong, by worst case estimates we're going to lose in a very big, spectacular fashion. we wont be counting beans to see how much money was squandered 'going green', we'll be trying to find a patch of green to grow some food.
- davidw 19y ago
  I don't think it's "simple" at all, because you have to look down into the details: doing what costs what, what are the worst case projections, how much it costs (theoretically) to avoid them, what are the best case projections... all that kind of stuff, as well as look skeptically at margins of errors on various projections. Not as exciting as yelling "doom! gloom!" or saying "problem, what problem?", but ultimately more productive, in my opinion. From what I've seen, some sort of middle course is likely the best approach for the time being. Start doing something, but maybe not going all out, just yet. On an interesting, and related note, an economist points out that property prices aren't falling (or at least relatively more where all prices are falling) in coastal areas that would be hit by rising sea levels.
- sethjohn 19y ago
  Some of the most interesting writing on this subject was the Copenhagen Consensus (www.copenhagenconsensus.com), and the critical responses to the Copenhagen Consensus. The CC was a group of economists who got together and tried to figure out which world-problems were most economical to solve. I.e., if you had a fixed amount of money where would you spend it to do the most good. The list was something like: 1. AIDS prevention in Africa. 2. AIDS treatment in Africa. 3. Generalized healthcare in the 3rd world. etc etc. Last. Climate change There are a lot of problems with the approach they took (considering only at the monetary value of lives not the "spiritual" value, assuming that charitable giving is a finite resource), but their approach of trying to do a reasonable cost-benefit analysis yields some very interesting results. If I really thought the cost was equivalent to "counting beans" and the benefit was avoiding a situation where we could no longer find arable land, I would agree that we should act quickly and strongly to halt CO2 emissions. In fact, I suspect that allowing the third-world access to cheap (fossil fuel) energy will benefit them more than avoiding small changes in climate. Of course, when it comes to American's perceived god-given right to drive around in monsterous SUVs...I come down firmly on the side of the environmentalists!
Dauntless 19y ago
I bet it feels good to be paid to support pollution.
sethjohn 19y ago
It's been interesting to notice over the course of this morning the modding activity on this subject. Seems like comments on both sides of the issue are being both up-modded and down-modded at a furious pace!
- davidw 19y ago
  Yeah... I kind of wish topics like this would be left to reddit or elsewhere, as the debates end up looking a little bit too much 'belief based' for my liking. I guess I shouldn't participate if I think that...
Tichy 19y ago
An article with some random people with random credentials making claims without giving any reasons. Completely useless for forming an opinion, so I don't understand why this got modded up.

21 points by gibsonf1 19y ago

"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming." "The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC" "carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else" This is the sort of nonsense that makes me ashamed to call myself a 'climate skeptic'. Then of course, I watch Al Gore's film where he shows Florida sinking under the ocean and that is ridiculous as well. Climate change is a potential-problem about which there are great (truly gigantic!) uncertainties and therefore no easy answers.

brlewis 19y ago
In Gore's film he talks about Antarctic ice melting much faster than scientists projected. That's part of the gigantic uncertainty you're concerned about. When there's gigantic uncertainty, a valid question is, "What is the worst-case scenario here?" Gore presented the Florida scenario as something that could happen if all the ice melted.
- sethjohn 19y ago
  "What's the worst case scenario" may be a valid question, but it's not a very helpful question...particularly not in a mass-market film where the caveat 'this is extremely unlikely' will be forgotten and the take-home message is that Florida is about to disappear. People should be informed about the issues in a manner that is as honest and realistic as possible, particularly when the uncertainties are so great.
  - jraines 19y ago
    It is a helpful question when thinking about what action to take. It's basic game theory, and it's why nobody ever launched a nuclear first strike during the Cold War. Why is this being modded down? If you don't consider the worst case scenario in strategic decision making, you're a fool. Especially when the worst case is famine, plague, etc., not "my startup crashes and I move back in with the parents".
    - te_platt 19y ago
      It only makes sense to consider the worst case scenario in the context of the probability that it will happen. On my drive home the worst case scenario is that I will be killed in a car accident, yet I'm going to take that chance. Also we have to consider the worst case scenario of the other course of action. What if the actions taken to combat global warming cause worse famine, plague, etc.?
      - downer 19y ago
        > On my drive home the worst case scenario is that I will be killed in a car accident No, the worst case scenario is you crash and are alive but trapped... At night, the ice weasels come.
      - jraines 19y ago
        You are correct about this. Without getting into probabilities of the different outcomes resulting from action or non-action on climate change, I'd recommend the video someone posted lower down in this thread. The weight given to an outcome in considering it in decision making would be the probability x magnitude (+ or -). So on your drive home the risk of death might not affect your decision to make the drive, if you had to drive across Johannesburg or Kuala Lumpar, you might consider taking a cab. So even while the probability that the Country A would survive a nuclear first strike with the capability to retaliate was quite low -- the magnitude of the outcome from its doing so was enough to dissuade Country B from taking that chance. To the other commenter below -- just google 'prisoner's dilemma' or 'Nash equilibrium' for some sources to get you started on game theory. Note: I'm not claiming to be an expert on game theory by any means. I'm recounting the Mutually Assured Destruction example from an economics class's subsection on game theory and would be happy if someone wanted to prove me wrong or elaborate on the subject.
    - huherto 19y ago
      You comment is very intriguing. Can you recommend any references to strategic decision making in basic game theory? Thanks.
      - 19y ago
- pixcavator 19y ago
  > Antarctic ice melting much faster than scientists projected. This only proves that those models were crap.
  - pixcavator 19y ago
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.ht...
deleted 19y ago
[deleted]

joeguilmette 19y ago

i dont think anyone can deny that are a great many 'gigantic' uncertainties related to the science behind climate change. some simple logic, however, is more than enough to convince me that doing something is the vastly superior alternative to doing nothing. if we choose to spend vast resources curbing emissions and such and we are wrong, those resources go to waste. given the current deployment of resources by our western civilization, such waste would need to go a long way to amount to more than a drop in the bucket. if we listen to the most passionate of skeptics and choose to do nothing and we are wrong, by worst case estimates we're going to lose in a very big, spectacular fashion. we wont be counting beans to see how much money was squandered 'going green', we'll be trying to find a patch of green to grow some food.

davidw 19y ago
I don't think it's "simple" at all, because you have to look down into the details: doing what costs what, what are the worst case projections, how much it costs (theoretically) to avoid them, what are the best case projections... all that kind of stuff, as well as look skeptically at margins of errors on various projections. Not as exciting as yelling "doom! gloom!" or saying "problem, what problem?", but ultimately more productive, in my opinion. From what I've seen, some sort of middle course is likely the best approach for the time being. Start doing something, but maybe not going all out, just yet. On an interesting, and related note, an economist points out that property prices aren't falling (or at least relatively more where all prices are falling) in coastal areas that would be hit by rising sea levels.
sethjohn 19y ago
Some of the most interesting writing on this subject was the Copenhagen Consensus (www.copenhagenconsensus.com), and the critical responses to the Copenhagen Consensus. The CC was a group of economists who got together and tried to figure out which world-problems were most economical to solve. I.e., if you had a fixed amount of money where would you spend it to do the most good. The list was something like: 1. AIDS prevention in Africa. 2. AIDS treatment in Africa. 3. Generalized healthcare in the 3rd world. etc etc. Last. Climate change There are a lot of problems with the approach they took (considering only at the monetary value of lives not the "spiritual" value, assuming that charitable giving is a finite resource), but their approach of trying to do a reasonable cost-benefit analysis yields some very interesting results. If I really thought the cost was equivalent to "counting beans" and the benefit was avoiding a situation where we could no longer find arable land, I would agree that we should act quickly and strongly to halt CO2 emissions. In fact, I suspect that allowing the third-world access to cheap (fossil fuel) energy will benefit them more than avoiding small changes in climate. Of course, when it comes to American's perceived god-given right to drive around in monsterous SUVs...I come down firmly on the side of the environmentalists!

Dauntless 19y ago

I bet it feels good to be paid to support pollution.

sethjohn 19y ago

It's been interesting to notice over the course of this morning the modding activity on this subject. Seems like comments on both sides of the issue are being both up-modded and down-modded at a furious pace!

davidw 19y ago
Yeah... I kind of wish topics like this would be left to reddit or elsewhere, as the debates end up looking a little bit too much 'belief based' for my liking. I guess I shouldn't participate if I think that...

Tichy 19y ago

An article with some random people with random credentials making claims without giving any reasons. Completely useless for forming an opinion, so I don't understand why this got modded up.